Talk:Martin Gardner
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theMartin Gardner article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1,2Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 22 May 2010,Martin Gardner waslinked fromSlashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted inits revision history. |
Archives |
| Index1,2 |
This page has archives. Topics inactive for90 days are automatically archived byClueBot III if there are more than5. |
'Gardner was best known for creating and sustaining interest in recreational mathematics' seems to be claiming that Gardner created recreational mathematics, which he surely didn't. If it really is claiming that, then it gets worse because the sentence continues 'and by extension, mathematics in general' and I'm darned sure he didn't create mathematics in general.31.52.252.210 (talk)18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be to keep "...best known for creating and sustaining interest in..." as it is. It's perfectly clear and unambiguous. If I mean to imply that hecreated recreational mathematics, I would write "...best known for creating, and sustaining interest in,..." or "...best known for creating -- and sustaining interest in -- ..." But without either commas or hyphens, the meaning is pretty clear to all but the most nitnoid.Valerius Tygart (talk)14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He also generated an interest in Flexagons. I think in one of his books he teaches a simple one from an earlier time.He generated an interest— Precedingunsigned comment added byStreetlight401 (talk •contribs)05:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned this section has taken on the character of a fan-page and has departed from the impartial, encyclopedic tone required of biographical Wikipedia articles. Everything carries a distinctively hagiographic tone and reads more like a tribute than a standard Wikipedia entry.
I propose this section be substantially pruned, edited to conform with a more neutral style, and merged with the "Influence" section, which seems to cover more or less the same ground. Both sections have similar tonal problems, but there is no purpose in generating a second, redundant section for the purpose of heaping more praise on the subject.Grifter84- Доверяй, но проверяй05:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heya. Should we discuss Martin Gardner's chess problem?
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | |
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Basically, it's about finding a way to checkmate Black's king. Rooks and kings move like in regularchess, while the knight's move could be compared to that of thefairy piece called thedabbaba. The dabbaba moves by leaping 2 squares like a rook.ChameleonGamer14:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There should be paragraphs on here about Martin Gardner and Charlotte Greenwald Gardner and their offspring.RichardBond (talk)16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it likely that "Martin Gardner's Mathematical Grapevine" would have been christened "(MG) squared" by Doris Schattschneider rather than "M(G squared)" which would condense only "Gardner's Mathematical Grapevine" without his given-name. Is there some way to confirm in the article that it is NOT "(MG) squared"? The footnotes don't lead to anything that can be clicked. It seems unlikely that a fan of Gardner's brand of recreational math would fail to notice that "Martine Gardner's Mathematical Grapevine" has that potential that "Gardner's Mathematical Grapevine" lacks. Another possibility that seems more likely if the "Martin" is omitted is "(G squared)M." If the only source for this is audio or video and we hear "gee emm squared" then I think the presumption should be "(GM) squared", not "G(M squared).2600:1700:6759:B000:FBA1:5D06:79D0:DFAB (talk)21:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
